As Barack Obama stated on the campaign trail multiple times, “When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won … getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

While it is in fact American drones — navigated and engaged by Americans from afar — and not troops, which fly above the soil of Pakistan, American troops are indeed on the way out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.

Last Tuesday, President Obama, advised by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, announced the first military action of his presidency, authorizing the deployment of 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

“There is no more solemn duty as president than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm’s way,” Obama stated. “I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaida supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border.”

This increase will begin in May, resulting in 55,000 American troops in Afghanistan by mid-summer, along with 32,000 NATO troops.

In comparison, there are still 146,000 American troops in Iraq.

But although Iraq was inarguably a poor decision and is still a justification-free war, a case can be made that the thousands of troops now there are serving in a country that is safer than when they first arrived. In Afghanistan, this is much less likely.

What’s more, the citizens of neither country involved support an increase. In the latest Washington Post–ABC News poll, only 34 percent of Americans support the increase, 32 percent believe the troop level should stay as is, and 29 percent support a decrease. Afghans present an even more unwelcoming public opinion: 18 percent of civilians support the increase, and 44 percent want a decrease.

Afghan opinion can largely be attributed to the 2,118 Afghan civilian deaths in 2008. The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict states “the international coalition in

Afghanistan is losing public support, one fallen civilian at a time,” and only some families are compensated for relative’s deaths tied to U.S. actions. But Americans’ disapproval, and likely some of Afghans’, can be attributed to the idea that more troops are not the answer.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace states that “The mere presence of foreign soldiers fighting a war in Afghanistan is probably the single most important factor in the resurgence of the Taliban. The best way to weaken … the armed opposition is to reduce military confrontations.”

Clearly, more American troops aren’t going to permit this recommendation. In a more general view, it might be that no number of troops will make a difference in a country that has not only never been successfully occupied, but shouldn’t even be defined as a country at this point.

Yes, Afghanistan may have an internationally recognized border and people who inhabit it continuously, but it does not have a meaningful legal economy; an open-access or successful education system; virtually any substantial infrastructure; or, most importantly, a government which efficiently delivers public services and legitimate police power.

Seems akin to another country that the U.S. military has had some trouble with before, doesn’t it?

As written in a Newsweek article titled “Obama’s Vietnam”:

“The war in Afghanistan is shaping up in all-too-familiar ways. The paral lels are disturbing: the president, eager to show his toughness, vows to do what it takes to ‘win.’ The nation that we are supposedly rescuing is no nation at all but rather a deeply divided, semi-failed state with an incompetent, corrupt government held to be illegitimate by a large portion of its population. The enemy is well accustomed to resisting foreign invaders and can escape into convenient refuges across the border.

There are constraints on America striking those sanctuaries. Meanwhile, neighboring countries may see a chance to bog America down in a costly war. Last, there is no easy way out.”

But while all the peace advocates and liberal journalists in the country may opine that more troops are not the answer, perhaps this is a case when Americans need to trust the Pentagon to do what is necessary but not popular. If President Obama is on board, it must be the answer, right?

Not so, according to at least one soldier currently stationed in Afghanistan.

“I do not think that more troops are the answer to the Afghanistan conflict,” he e-mailed. “The only way to win this conflict is to have the Afghan people change their way of life. Troop levels won’t help. What will help is buying the Afghan people more stuff — but this is wasted money. It may help for a little while, but when we stop they will want us out.

“I still do not see what the end game is here. They will never function like the U.S. or West functions … Raising troop levels will just provide more targets and do more harm than good.”

It seems, then, that although Obama was right to state “Afghanistan has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it requires,” perhaps there is no strategy, nor sustainable amount of resources that will solve what has now been America’s problem for over seven years.

There is certainly no direction — or end game, as my contact stated — in sight.

Although Obama may be “absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means,” as he told the Canadian Broadcast Corporation last week, and that “we’re going to have to use diplomacy and development,” deploying thousands of troops before even sending Secretary of State Clinton over for a visit is doing the exact opposite.

So, as last week — when he claimed bipartisanship when reality proved the opposite — President Obama gets a poor score from the Obamameter for claiming diplomacy first but putting thousands of troops in danger instead.

— Steve Adams is a graduate student in journalism and mass communication from Annapolis, Md.